Bad Christian Art 84 comments

“Why,” asks the title of a recent movie review by Salon writer Andrew O’Hehir, “are Christian movies so awful?” He asks this after watching Soul Surfer, a film targeted at American evangelicals, about a one-armed surfer girl. It’s supposed to be a true story, insofar as anything can be true once it has been plucked from the web of human interdependence and stretched across a fifty-foot screen.

Apparently this is a bad movie, though the only question when such movies hit the screen is not whether they are bad, but whether they are better than Left Behind, or better than Facing the Giants, or better than whatever else has been served up to good Christian people who judge art by criteria like message and wholesomeness and theological purity.

I’m convinced that bad art derives, like bad literary theory, from bad theology. To know God falsely is to write and paint and sculpt and cook and dance Him falsely. Perhaps it’s not poor artistic skill that yields bad Christian art, in other words, but poor Christianity.

Consider, for example, some common sins of the Christian writer:

Neat resolution: You can find it on the shelves of your local Christian bookstore: the wayward son comes to Christ, the villain is shamed, love (which deftly avoids pre-marital sex) blossoms, and the right people praise God in the end. Perhaps best of all, we learn Why This All Happened.

Many of us are familiar, likewise, with that tendency among some Christians to view life as a sitcom, with God steadily revealing how the troubles in our lives yield more good than ill. It’s sad that he died so young, but look at how his brother has turned to Christ. The earthquake killed thousands, but see how God’s people are coming together in response.

What good God works from a three year-old who is raped, however, or a teenager who succumbs to schizophrenia, is His domain entirely, and to speculate on how these horrors fit into the Great Plan borders on obscenity.

Sometimes we suffer and often we fail, and there is no clear answer why, no cosmic math that redeems, in our broken hearts, this sadness. The worst Christian novels seem to forget Oswald Chambers’s insightful observation, which is that God promises deliverance in suffering, not deliverance from suffering. And so they lie about the world and about God and about the quiet, enduring faith of our brethren in anguish.

One-dimensional characters: In many Christian novels there are only three kinds of characters: the good, the evil, and the not-so-evil ones who are about to get themselves saved. And perhaps this saved/not saved dichotomy—more a product of American evangelicalism than Christian orthodoxy—accounts for the problem.

I think we might craft better characters if we accept that every one of us is journeying the path between heaven and hell, and losing his way, and rushing headlong one direction before abruptly changing course to dash in the other, and hearing rumors about what lies ahead, and hoping and dreading in his heart what lies each way, and grabbing hold of someone by the arm or by the hair and dragging, sometimes from love and sometimes from hate and sometimes from both.

Sentimentality: Like pornography, sentimentality corrupts the sight and the soul, because it is passion unearned. Whether it is Xerxes weeping at the morality of his unknown minions assembled at the Hellespont, or me being tempted to well up as the protagonist in Facing the Giants grips his Bible and whimpers in a glen, the rightful rejoinder is the same: you didn’t earn this emotion.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s warning against cheap grace comes to mind, a recognition that our redemption was bought with a price, as redemption always is. The writer who gives us sentimentality is akin to the painter Thomas Kinkade, who explicitly aims to paint the world without the Fall, which is not really the world at all, but a cheap, maudlin, knock-off of the world, a world without suffering and desperate faith and Christ Himself, which is not really a world worth painting, or writing about, or redeeming.

Cleanliness: I confess that the best way to deter me from watching a movie is to tell me it’s “wholesome.” This is because that word applied to art is a lie on its face, because insofar as art is stripped of the world’s sin and suffering it is not really whole at all.

This seems to be a failing—on the part of artist and consumer alike—in what my Orthodox friends call theosis, or walk, as my evangelical friends say. In short, if Christian novels and movies and blogs and speeches must be stripped of profanity and sensuality and critical questions, all for the sake of sparing us scandal, then we have to wonder what has happened that such a wide swath of Christendom has failed to graduate from milk to meat.

And if we remember that theology is the knowing of God, we have to ask in turn why so many Christians know God so weakly that they need such wholesomeness in order for their faith to be preserved.

This, finally, is what especially worries me, that bad Christian art is a problem of demand rather than supply. What if a reinvigorated Church were to embed genuine faith in the artist’s psyche and soul, such that he need no longer wear it on his sleeve, such that he bear to see and tell the world in its brokenness and beauty? Would Christian audiences embrace or despise the result?

Not sure I agree with this article. Statements like the following seem inaccurate & unfair to me: "if Christian novels and movies and blogs and speeches must be stripped of profanity and sensuality and critical questions, all for the sake of sparing us scandal, then we have to wonder what has happened that such a wide swath of Christendom has failed to graduate from milk to meat."

Why are profanity, sensuality and critical questions grouped together? We don't avoid them to avoid scandal. Instead we avoid profanity and immoral sensuality because God's Word commands us to avoid them. I don't believe this is a "milk to meat" issue either! Milk to meat is about growing in faith, not growing in our ability to incorporate the world's standards in our work.

As believers we can grapple with critical questions & sensuality without using profanity. The Bible itself does that. Both Jesus and Paul dealt with serious issues and used quite strong language in doing so, all without the use of profanity. The Song of Solomon deals with sensual issues in the proper context.

I can see using profanity in the development of some literary characters. A gangster/villain is not going to watch his language, and one who does won't seem believable. I get that. Still as believers, and students/followers of Jesus, we must balance this against verses like Ephesians 4:29 where Paul says, "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths..." I'm sure that would include using pens, computers, and paint brushes to convey our message!

What about our obligation in 1 Cor. 8:9-13, to not harm the faith of the brother or sister who is weak in their faith? Doesn't that issue need to be part of this discussion as well?

And "Wholesomeness" is a bad thing? A "wholesome" movie is a deterrent? I agree that many "Christian" movies, and much of "Christian" art, is of poor quality, but we are called to be wholesome in our behavior, not consider it a deterrent.

IMO, some of the problem is that artists who become believers automatically think they must turn their art talent into a ministry. I'm not sure G_d requires that, or that the Bible teaches it. Some may be called to that, but clearly not all are.

We are supposed to create each art piece as if we are creating it for Jesus, not make every art piece we create about Jesus.

We are supposed to be "in" the world, not "of" the world. Our art shouldn't look like the world's art. Moreover, as believers, we are tapped into THE Creator of the universe. Our work should reflect that influence. If it does it won't be trite, shallow, phony or profane. Instead our work will convey truth, joy, love, peace, trust, hope & real life.

I am an artist and I recently completed a series of 12 contemporary paintings on “The Church”. Exploring the different conditions of the church, which were inspired by the 7 churches in Revelation.
I would love to get feedback from anyone willing to take a look.

None of my favorite Christian movies were made for an only Christian audience. They are: The Seventh Cross, The Bishop's Wife, Man for All Seasons, Crown of Stars, Friendly Persuasion and Angels with Dirty Faces. All are older and were made for the masses, most of whom were Christian. They starred actors like Grant, McCrea, Tracy, Cagney, Schofield, & Cooper, all old hands who knew how to work a good script. and that is the rub--they all had good scripts.

They are all from a day when the mainstream churches flourished and there were more pleasantly lukewarm Christians and agnostic fellow travelers who remained open minded to any good movie. Part of me misses those less polarized, more civilized days.

Sentimentality!!!!! That's it, that's exactly it. I'm so excited when I find others who understand me perfectly. Especially as an artist who has witnessed such horrors as poor mime used for evangelism and phrases such as. 'If you dance with ribbons, just practice waving them around a bit and then we'll do it on the streets for Jesus.'

I have found that 'bad' christian art, whether painting, music, films or whatever, often comes about because a person wants to create art but feels somewhat pressured to make it christian. Or they set out to create a christian piece of art, I think that's more like it. In both scenarios, you don't necessarily have the passion, the personal emotion that is typical of good art. At least when I like art, it's because I really see the creators soul and their desires in the piece. It's a part of them - it's art. It can't be bought. The actual, physical painting can be, but the 'art' is the intangible part that was beyond just putting paint on a canvas, or playing notes on a piano.

I fear that making a christian film is often like making a corporate brochure. It can be engaging on some level if you're the intended audience but it lacks the part that really connects with you, the part that knows who you are.

I'm still striving towards what I've spoken of here. My work is thegiveawayproject.com and I'm still uploading new and old work.

Anyroad, all the best to other creators. Give critiques but don't forget to create yourself, too!

Thank you so much for this article- I'm writing a thesis on the same subject. But I don't quite understand what you mean by sentimentality- you defined it as unearned emotion, but doesn't all good art cause that? Tragedies cause us grief and sorrow; comedies make us happy and laugh. One of the key characteristics of art is the fact that it causes us to feel emotions that we wouldn't otherwise feel. Are you bringing to light the fact that Christian art (most) gives us the unearned feelings of sappy content and a vague hope?

You said, “And perhaps this saved/not saved dichotomy—more a product of American evangelicalism than Christian orthodoxy—accounts for the problem,” that problem being, you believe, the false face put on most Christian art. But, the dichotomy of saved/unsaved is Biblical. This dichotomy is everywhere in Scripture; for example, in many Psalms and Proverbs, from the beginning of the Psalms, Psalm 1: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked.” When teaching His disciples, Jesus used the dichotomy of “you” and “the world.”

You use terms for sexual corruption, like ‘obscenity’ and ‘pornography’, to describe what you believe most Christian writers produce as fiction. What an unjust indictment, when Christian writers usually avoid these very things! And, isn’t that okay to do this, since we’re told to keep ourselves unspotted from the world, as part of true religion? I know there are those who are writing formulaic Christian novels, and that’s a shame. But most Christian writers are concerned with obedience to the Lord’s standards.

Wholesomeness in art isn’t a “lie”. Not all art is realistic. Art can be whatever the writer or artist wants it to be. Don’t we have freedom to be wholesome? (Don’t we have the Biblical mandate to be wholesome?) Don’t you ever just want to visit a very different kind of place? Someplace untainted by sin? Or in which sin is diminished? What joy! Isn’t that all right to want? Art isn’t only what’s true, but also what’s good and beautiful. Also, true doesn’t necessarily mean realistic.

About the movie COURAGEOUS, I’m sure my church family is going to be pleased to see some grit plus a happy (redemptive) ending. But that doesn’t mean that there will be no thoughtful criticisms of the film, if warranted. I have seen FIREPROOF. Yes, it has a very happy ending, but the characters have a very rough ride getting there. Just like life. Just like redemption.

I too often squirm when a film is overtly evangelical Christian, mostly because I find the theology ill-grafted into the framework (rather than organic to it) or full of cliches (rather than fresh and thought-provoking material). Such theological approaches to art concern me, and perhaps at times they do reflect shaky theology.

I am equally concerned, however, by the insinuation that the problem is NECESSARILY bad theology. For an organization that claims to step outside the shouting matches of ideologues, this is quite a strongly ideological blog post to associate with.

As much as I respect Image, I've observed over the last few years that despite the appearance of welcoming various religions and denominations in a dialogue of art, faith, and mystery, and despite the claim to transcend ideology by focusing on beauty, Image is indeed quite ideological, clearly preferencing liturgical traditions and often subtly or overtly demeaning those that aren't. And this should not surprise me. Can any organization or publication NOT be ideological? Even anti-ideology is an ideology, is it not? I would love to see more discussion on the organization's mission.

Despite what I've critiqued above, I love Image for what it is; I'm just not always sure the stated mission coheres with the content. I'd like to see more self-awareness.

If you're up for more Maxwell, his correspondence with Sylvia Townshend Warner, The Element of Lavishness, is both different (Warner being a bit more eccentric than Welty) and similar (Maxwell being so very civilized, always).

Not sure if this is your thing, but I dearly love Dear Genius: The Letters of Ursula Nordstrom. She was the children's books editor at Harper's for years and worked with Maurice Sendak, E.B. White, Louise Fitzhugh, and many more. It's just lovely.

2) Evangelical art is not generally going to place art above the message. Evangelical Christianity believes it has a unique, irreplaceable, life-changing message. Far, far less than 5% of art meets that criteria. It is interesting that you used the parable of the Prodigal Son. That's pretty close to the Gold Standard of Christian story-telling. The "Jesus Film" is being shown all over the world, all year long, for decades. No one is saying "Gee, how cliche. How about pushing the envelope." And the people showing that film are not going to. It is not possible that Christian art is going to meet one of the fundamental qualities of "good art": that is, novelty--unless it exhibits bad theology. Pilgrim's Progress is always going to be the starting point for good Christian novels. It is worth noting that C.S. Lewis's novels are not without their detractors.

3) Most people don't have the desire for lofty art critiques think ought to exist in everything. The best read authors are Romance writers. Do you like the art of the short story? You'd do better in the Science Fiction section. There's a reason all those Romantic Comedy's are produced every year with their sappy romance and lack of significant comedy.

4) Finally, there is one area of art in which Christian art is predominant: Music. And concomitantly, poetry.

I agree that the bad art springs from bad theology, but a badness that consists in a subtle rejection of the Incarnation. Evangelical Protestantism (in practice, not necessarily in theology) can tend toward gnosticism. The market of "Christian products" not only creates a ghettoization of culture, but more specifically of sensibility, a sensibility that might, were it more closely in touch with the dirt and grime of humanity, actually provide a balance to the gnosticism.

So, in the mean time, let's read more Dostoyevsky, Flannery O'Connor, and others like them -- it will not only provide a corrective to our sensibility, but may also provide a corrective to a market that allows for movies like Facing the Giants (somebody is buying DVDs of this stuff -- and though it will be no surprise to folks here, there are Christian filmmakers who view their work less as 'ministry' and more as 'sausage factory'.)

This is far from being a judgemental article. To say that this is a judgemental article is far from understanding the intent of the author. What this is is discernment. Discerning what is art is a GOOD effort and one that we as Christians should be striving for. We should be trying for excellence, but instead we are settling for average or worse for "safety" purposes. I cannot stress excellence enough (even the builders of the temple were chosen for the excellence they had achieved in their fields).

This article is far from judgemental. Instead, it is actually using discernment in the realm of art and is exactly what we as Christians should be doing.

I believe you are confusing terms when using the concept of art in place of media. I found in reading your article that your intellect got in the way of your sensitivity towards children and entertainment. Not everything we do needs to shake us to the core. God created pleasure. Not every Christian is in their head and may appreciate the "heart of the matter."
I appreciate Sherry Early's response (and many others) and wish I could be as eloquent. I truly believe you have missed the mark in your article when being as critical as you are towards Christians banding together to represent Christ in a meaningful way. God created variety and diversity in His people, thankfully. Your perspective is a consideration, but I find your judgement a bit too harsh to allow for grace to be evident. The movies and music of the 50's and 60's sugar coated everything, the paintings were so abstract they didn't provide relational dialogue. This is when I was being influenced and I didn't have the benefit of movies like Facing the Giant to show me that Christians really did get it wrong and could make it right by demonstrating faith and extending grace. When I was being influenced, there was nothing meaningful for me to believe that Jesus was real. These stories (though not sophisticated in artistry) do resonate with the average person because it reflects their lives. Thomas Kinkade is not a Christian artist - he is supposedly a Christian who does art and applies a unique technique at best. It is important to distinguish between these two distinctions.

The church has failed in many ways through out the centuries, but it is good to see courageous acts being accomplished in the media today (albeit maybe not art). It is necessary to counteract the darkness in "world" media. I hope you will reconsider being so judgmental with the use of intellectual jargon in the next article you write. After all, as art influences so does our writings.

If God is Holy and does not allow any unclean thing in His presence"Woe is me for I am an unclean person" how can we then permit any unholiness to pervade our lives and still be faithful to our Holy God.?

John, I couldn't possibly disagree more with the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is relativity at its finest and allows for any piece of "work" to be called art. Through this saying it would be then necessary to call those bodice rippers found Wal-Mart shelves as art simply because there are people who are attracted to them. No, beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder, unless that beholder happens to be God. We must look at art through God to determine what is good, beautiful, and true.

Maybe I'm missing something here but can you give us an example of good art? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I enjoyed Soul Surfer. Ithought it was one of the best movies that have come out in long while. It was inspiring and entertaining. It was a feel good movie. That's one of the things movies are good at.

Thanks for the interesting post. I feel like I'm a little late to the conversation, but here is what I think. Contemporary Christian art is defined, and it's value determined by the degree it strengthens ones faith. The type of Christians that contemporary Christian art appeals to are people who see doubt as sin, and therefore avoid it as such. They avoid it at all costs. They avoid complications, complexities, hues of grey, messiness, and contradictions, because all of these can and often do cause doubt. It is my experience that they even have a strong tendency to rationalize away or even deny that those things even exist. Great art, in my opinion, is art that asks fundamental questions of existence, and if you are being honest, the answers to those questions are never easy, and always messy. If you cannot find evil inside yourself, you are not looking very hard. And I think if Christ's call is anything it's a call for introspection that leads us to understand our desperate need for His saving grace.

It's interesting to me to see that this pathology bleeds generously into nationalist art; a denial of reality in order to maintain an unhealthy, or maybe an unjustified belief in ones country. It's the same thing really.

Right on! I always say, if you are too condescendingly articulate to regularly write cursing into your screenplays then get the f@*# out of the art business. Seriously. And what's more, if your theology includes the pie-in-the-sky notion that sanctification actually can iron out warts in our character - that Christ-likeness is not only desirable but possible - then maybe you need to read some new theologians, some that are more real and less...Pauline. And honestly, when you sit back and think about it, Creation before the fall wasn't a brilliant piece of artwork by the Creator. Instead, it was like His rough draft, only truly completed after sin had entered the world and made it less appallingly sterile.

I've given this issue/complaint a lot of thought, and I don't think it's as simple as it may appear to be in your analysis, although you make some excellent points.

Yes resolutions in stories can be "too neat" and unearned. But this happens in both stories written by Christians and stories by non-Christians. In the non-Christian variety, characters make all sorts of sinful and destructive choices, but they are rewarded with life, health, and happiness because underneath they're really good people who mean well.

One-dimensional characters and sentimentality are both examples of poor storytelling technique that are again found in all sorts of books form all sorts of publishers.

As for cleanliness, I believe that is possible, and even advisable, to tell stories without an over-abundance of profanity and sensuality, but never without critical questioning. Tolstoy, Hugo, Tolkien--all of these men wrote Christian novels without the kinds of gratuitous depiction of intimate sexuality and sin that is thought to be necessary for good literature these days. (Although Hugo did descend into the sewers for a good while in Les Miserables.:)) Part of the problem is that when a book does not come with a "Christian" label or doesn't have an explicitly evangelical Christian conversion scene, we cease to describe it as a Christian novel (or movie). So then the really good "Christian" movies or books never get factored into the discussions about bad Christian art. There are good movies out there, made by Christians with Christ-filled themes and characters and ideas, but they may not fit the template of Christian movie or book marketed to Christians.

I don't think the point here is to insert an overabundance of profanity or sensuality for the purpose of making 'good literature', but rather to step outside of our hospital-clean American church existences and deal with some of the tougher issues that people are really facing today in the world. I would highly recommend that you visit a third world country for long enough to see the little beggar children who were stolen from their parents and scarred mercilessly so that they can beg more effectively for the local mafia. Where are the stories about the heroic missionaries who march into brothels to rescue the whores who have no other way to make a living for themselves? I've seen these scarred children and heard stories from the missionaries who rescue the whores and teach them new trades.

I'm nowhere near suggesting that we violate our young children's innocence with images of these atrocities, but as mature adults, why are we afraid of a little profanity? How do we expect to share the love of Jesus with a broken world when we are too afraid to look at the scarred faces of the children and walk into the brothels?

Stories about our neat little American church existences (like the one I grew up in) have no need of gratuitous violence, profanity or sensuality. Those don't exist in that context. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Mary Sue choosing to trust God for her next school project and discovering how easy life is with Jesus. I see the overabundance of these stories as a symptom of the self-indulgence and self-focus of the American church. God made a big world out there, and the Enemy is running loose in it. Why are we so busy editing the 'bad words' from our lives when there are so many people out there who could use a little help editing the physical, economical and sexual oppression out of theirs?

First, I don't need to go to a third world country to see tragedy. There is plenty in our own country. Unfortunately, most of it is just as invisible to the uninvolved here as it is in countries thousands of miles away- whether one participates in church or not.

Is the church hospital-clean? Hardly. It's full of sinners, some sincere in their pursuit of God, others mere socialites looking for a nook to perch in. A large part of the church, however, has been effectively wiped clean of the presence and power of God, leaving it impotent in it's effect on society.

Secondly, what if we like our feel-good stories? What harm does that do anybody? And why should I have to listen to swearing or participate in sexual story lines to be considered "in touch" with things? Why castigate the church for these petty things? The hostility I see being vented against the body of Christ here in these postings and in the article is insane!

Yes, the church is not what it is supposed to be as a whole, although I know of churches where the Lord is moving strongly among His people. So why not solve the problem the Lord's way instead of causing harm with all this self-righteous banter and depreciative negativity?

Well said, author and commentors. A band I like very much had an independently produced album where the singer said he was "screwed up." When they signed a Christian record deal, the album was re-released with the same songs all sort of redone, but the only words I heard change were the former becoming "messed up." More words might have changed, but I sort of stopped listening at that point. I was so disappointed that the artists involved were convinced to sanitize by a Christian record label.

I definitely agree with the comment that when Christian's aim to teach by art, they become less artful, although I have certainly learned plenty from good art. I have realized that I am not a good songwriter because I always try to be so clear with what I am thinking. The best songs make me wonder what the writer meant, and lead me to form my own interpretation. I think much of Christian art is so worried about being misinterpreted or misunderstood that it doesn't allow itself to be mysterious, messy, or thoughtful. Very little "praise and worship" music requires any thought to understand (stuff like "I love you Jesus" is pretty obvious). I'm not dismissing it across the board, I think there is a place for obvious lyrics in music, but everything shouldn't just be laid out for you as the listener. Jesus didn't always concern himself about being misunderstood (ex. "destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days." "I am the bread of life", "you must be born again" etc), but sometimes he tried to be very clear (much of the sermon on the mount, as well as after his resurrection. To tell the truth, its harder to find places where he was clear than where he was metaphorical, etc). Christian art tends to be extremely concerned with getting its message across very clearly without any misinterpretation, and this leaves audiences who want to think and be challanged cold. I used to wonder why Jesus was sometimes so unclear with some of his messages (e.g. his response to the rich young ruler. Why didn't he just tell that guy to have faith in him? He did, but not in the way we would have. He just showed the guy what his faith was actually in.). Christ was obviously more creative than we are, and much less concerned about being misunderstood.

Just to clarify, I realize the distinction you're making between Christ's clear messages and his metaphorical ones (point taken), but I think it's a stretch to imply that Christ's "aim" in parables was not to teach. How do you account, also, for the times when Christ actually explained the meaning behind his own parables shortly thereafter telling them?

I feel like Christian film is where Christian music was a few decades ago - it's got a little attention and people are starting to take it seriously, but a lot of it is still really bad.

If you want challenging art from a Christian perspective, look into music. Ironically, heavy music is great place to start. Artists like Zao, Underoath, mewithoutyou, Demon Hunter, Flyleaf, and RED all make relevant art that isn't sugarcoated with CHRISTIANITY(TM).

That actually is an excellent point, I hadn't thought about that. Go back a couple of decades and you get the early d.c. Talk stuff, which I thought was great at the time but just seems kind of embarrassing now. But given time to mature, and now we do have some really good Christian bands. Every genre needs time to really develop into something worthwhile, so it's advisable to still be patient with Christian film.

^ so much of what these christian films attempt to do is by a means that the modern mainstream american (christian) see as natural, when ultimately they subvert Christianity itself, without even being aware of it. Hence the "bad theology."

Flannery O'Connor said something to the effect that "the true novelist of tomorrow will be writing about things no one wants to hear about." This applies to all of the arts, and her being a Catholic, her stories are testament to her worldview (in regards to art as well as God and everything else).

As a christian writer/director I too share this desire for real and honest films to be made, unafraid of the truth but bathed in His grace. These ideas are on the forefront of my approach to the stories I am led to tell.

Christians should not be afraid of approaching any subject matter. Christians should be on the forefront of approaching controversial material.

I can only trust that those who see my films will connect to the honesty and sense His presence.

Someone I look up to said that posting something like this and then never replying to the commenters is like inviting people into your home, starting a discussion, and then walking out the door before anyone can speak.

Thanks so much for your insightful comments, many of which indicate that the readers likely have more of substance to offer on this topic than the writer.

What resonates most with me is the idea of sacramentality, which fits my sense that Gnosticism is a great enemy of both Christianity and art. One cannot abandon the flesh and be fully worshipful or fully artful.

Which implies, I think, that good art can not only soothe the soul, but save it. Is that too bold?

Tony, thanks for chiming back in. You seem to sort of wonder out loud if, 'good art can not only soothe the soul, but save it'? Madeline L'Engle wrote, in her book /Walking on Water/ (the book which helped me, as a new Christian 10 years ago, deepen my relationship between my Faith and my lifelong love of the Arts) that 'Jesus wasn't a theologian, he was God who told stories.'

A storyteller is of course a kind of artist, and when we share in that storytelling (or even perhaps simply participate in the story), we become co-artists. I'd highly recommend L'Engle's book for anyone interested in this subject; she makes a strong argument for the idea of Incarnationality--that we are co-creators with God, participating in small ways in the Incarnation when we create. Christ came not just to baptize men, but to baptize all things that could be converted and baptized--for indeed, He came to make all things new.

In medieval Europe, most people simply could not read, and so God's stories were put into stained glass and stone. And what is, for example, Bach's music but a kind of incarnation of the Gospel--bringing us through suffering, to a kind of musical prophetical fulfillment of the promise that one day the universe will rest in peace, balance and beauty, and that, 'All shall be well, all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well'?

Way back when in 1981, when I was a new Christian pursuing a career in the arts, Franky Schaeffer wrote a timely book called "Addicted to Mediocrity" in which he states,"Whenever Christians, and evangelicals in particular, have attempted to 'reach the world' through the media—TV, film, publishing and so on—the thinking public gets the firm idea that, like soup in a bad restaurant, Christians' brains are best left unstirred."
It's sad to say nothing much has changed except the soup has a higher fat and sugar content 30 years later.

Sometimes I fancy myself a decent writer. Then I read something insightful as this post, and I am humbled.
Thanks for sharing what moved you. As I've traveled this young Faith path, I've begun to think of ways I can add to His kingdom through my talents. But I'm often apprehensive because of this "bad Christian art" and its cheesiness. I envision a story where the protagonist is broken and beaten just like we all are, and doesn't necessarily come around to the wholesome end we see in so many stories (Christian or secular) because that's not what life is always about.

Your post has inspired me to continue to plan more writing, and hopefully find the story that moves me whether it has the "bad Christian art" properties or not. Thank you for that.

Tony, this was a truly inspiring article. I am a musician, and while I have also been a Christian since childhood, I have had a lot of difficulty since my teenage years listening to Christian music. Especially the genre usually called "Praise and Worship".

It's difficult because as a Christian, I feel bad sometimes for actively disliking music that is singing the praises of the God I also praise, but at the same time, I can't help but feel that while it is rich in praise, it feels so rote in execution. So many of the songs sound the same, and most of them have only one verse and a chorus repeated frankly too many times. But I feel like if I ever expressed dissatisfaction, I could be looked down upon as having a lack of faith or worse.

I suppose that's why I like Derek Webb so much (and indeed, it was his Tweet linking to this article that led me here), because while he is undeniably Christian, he is also unafraid of his humanity. This article helped me find a way to address this feeling in a clear manner. Thank you for posting it!

This sort of work does not even begin to aspire to art--it aspires to be Hallmark schlock. But I don't think a true Christian art would necessarily be grim and gray, concentrating on the pathologies of a fallen world. I like Flannery O'Connor as much as the next guy, but she's not the only model. And since much of contemporary art seems to be in a nasty dead end, one would hope that a Christian art could be a corrective. For instance, nowadays we scorn the very idea of beauty, but St. Paul said to think on what is beautiful and excellent. Much of the great (Christian) art of the past was an attempt to do that.

Not sure if your main thesis (bad religion equals bad movie/art) is exactly scientific, but I like it. In any event, there are some good religious films out. Not sure they're made by/for the promotions of religions in question (Orgasmo surely is NOT), but some are really good. I have a fondness for Mormon videos (Orgasmo love conquers all faiths however). I can't seem to find it at the moment, but there's an excellent 'coming of age' movie about a pair of Mormon missionaries and the dangers of seduction. Kid falls in love, has sex, and then the parents come whisk him away from the girl. I'm pretty sure somebody could point to at least a half-dozen Sci-fi religious films that are good.

You are correct in the overall opinion that religious films mostly suck hind tit. Might I posit Tim's Law on this topic?

Tim's Law on religious movies: the more overt the attempt at proselytizing made by a religious movie, the higher the odds are that it'll be absolute crap.

As Christian denominations or sects move away from sacramental theology, generally, we will see the art suffer. Sacramental theology is Incarnational; each human action which is done in unity with the spirit of Christ brings the spirit of Christ into the world in a physical, temporal sense. Sacramental theology places importance on physical expressions of the faith, and because of this, it tends to work itself out naturally in artistic expression, both in the plastic arts, as well as in music and literature. (Music is of course a physical expression, as sound is a physical phenomenon--wood, metal or other materials vibrating air particles, which in turn interact with the components of the human ear.) Bach was Lutheran, so he was only removed a few degrees from the Catholic Church. The difference of those few theological degrees was great, but nonetheless, Bach was much closer to the Catholic Church than a modern Evangelical would be. Because of this, Bach was a good deal closer to the Catholic theology of sacrament than a 20th- or 21st-century American evangelical would be. Luther still believed that marriage and baptism were sacraments, and still believed that confession was a good and essential form, though Luther rejected confession (and the rest of the sacraments of the Catholic Church) as being sacramental.

And so Bach's theology, as a Lutheran, led him to a more physical expression of his faith than we would have found, had he been part of a less sacramentally-oriented denomination or sect of Christianity. It's worth noting that among Bach's biggest influence was the Catholic composers--especially Vivaldi. Italy during Bach's time was of course heavily steeped in Catholic culture, and Vivaldi himself was even a Catholic priest! Bach's passion plays (St. Matthew's Passion/St. Mark's Passion), as well as his numerous Cantatas, were in a very real sense, Bach's own version of Italian opera--complete with recitatives, arias, large expansive dramatic instrumental introductory movements, etc. Bach also happened to write large form Mass settings (B Minor Mass) as well as various smaller Mass settings. Can one imagine a contemporary Evangelical pop/rock worship star sitting down and writing a Mass setting today? I doubt it.

To mention briefly the field of literature, as we move closer to the Catholic Church and it's sacramental understanding of the Faith, we find a more naturally profound expression--and so the Anglican writers (a good deal closer to the Catholic Church than the Evangelicals, in history, forms, and sacramental understanding) tend to write more profoundly than their Evangelical counterparts. Ask most contemporary American Protestant or Evangelical Christians what their favorite Christian writer is, and I think that a good deal many would reply, 'C.S. Lewis'. Lewis considered himself Anglican, but he actually held many beliefs which went beyond Anglicanism, attending an Anglo-Catholic parish for his last many years, going regularly to auricular confession, and believing in purgatory. Lewis is at his best with his allegorical writing, but it is Tolkien's Catholicity enables Tolkien to craft a work which is an important step up from Allegory, entering the realm of a complete Mythology. Tolkien's Catholic theology had enabled him to be so deeply steeped in the Faith, that he was able to move beyond direct metaphor (allegory) and enter a more complex and profound area altogether.

'The role of the artist is to make visible the unseen.' Pope John Paul II

Thank you for the analysis. Sacramentality is key. Speaking of contemporary literature writers who were Catholic, you of course, can't get around Flannery O'Connor:

"There is something in us, as storytellers and as listeners to stories, that demands the redemptive act, that demands that what falls at least be offered the chance to be restored. The reader of today looks for this motion, and rightly so, but what he has forgotten is the cost of it. His sense of evil is diluted or lacking altogether, and so he has forgotten the price of restoration. When he reads a novel, he wants either his sense tormented or his spirits raised. He wants to be transported, instantly, either to mock damnation or a mock innocence."
(Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose)

Tony, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. You might consider the way that our entire society, not merely "Christian" society, has moved away from good storytelling. As an avid moviegoer, I find that so much of Hollywood's modern products are complete crap, with exactly the traits you describe (flat characters, desire for resolution, etc.). We might examine whether the faults you attest to Christian artists are rather products of a society that has lost its storytelling roots. Thoughts?

My personal pet peeve in Christian art is children's books. Most "Christian" kids' books are smarmy morality tales. But there are beautiful, excellent, and morally appropriate children's books out there if one is willing to look. Veggie Tales movies are generally exempt from my wrath because they make me laugh, but the rest of their merchandise leaves me cold.

Thank you Mr. Woodlief for the excellent article, and all the commentators for the great discussion!

This brought to mind a relevant quote from Dorothy Sayers (H/T www.sdsmith.net):

“The vital power of an imaginative work demands a diversity within its unity; and the stronger the diversity, the more massive the unity. Incidentally, this is the weakness of most ‘edifying’ or ‘propaganda’ literature. There is no diversity. The Energy is active only in one part of the whole, and in consequence the wholeness is destroyed and the Power diminished.”

It's really impressive to see evangelical readers and progressive ones having a civil conversation in response to this article (I place myself in the later category).

I think the problems with self-described "Christian" fiction are similar to those in self-described "romantic comedies," or "action blockbuster," or "anime." Artists who restrict themselves to a genre often seem to repeat the tropes established by a few seminal works in that genre, instead of drawing from outside sources or (gasp!) real life. Art needs to be honest, and if you draw not from your own experience but from some imagined perfect reality (which, as Emily mentioned, is beyond mortal comprehension to begin with) you're going to fail.

Art needs to be honest, and if you draw not from your own experience but from some imagined perfect reality you're going to fail.
------------------------------
Religious film-makers are faced with a two-edged sword. If they limit the width of their film to reality, then God must remain a mystery. To be useful as a recruiting tool, God cannot be TOO mysterious or they couldn't claim so much special/privileged access to God.
An example of a film (and a critical and commercial success) that is 'religious' (but not denominational) and keeps God mystical is is Kubrick's 2001.
Enjoy.

Any art is bad art if it offends the audience's sense of what is true and real. There is balance and symmetry and logic the cosmos, and when an artist presents work that does not jive with the innate laws of reality and logic, people tend to reject it. Most of this "truth of the cosmos" isn't something people can readily identity and define, but they know it's there non-the-less. It's like pornography. It's impossible to define in so many words, but you know it when you see it. The issue with "christian" art is that to make christianity appear real, they must bend, if not break, these rules of the cosmos. And thus the attempt at revealing christianity in art comes across as offending our innate sense of the cosmos because it lacks that balance we know to be real.

I'm seeing the assumption here that Christianity is false, and therefore one must "bend, if not break, these 'rules of the cosmos'" in order to make it appear real. May I point out that this is a very different discussion from 'Christian artists are portraying the reality of sin and redemption wrongly'. However, you bring up a valid concern. Those that I would call 'born again', 'Spirit-filled' or even 'hardcore' Christians are willing to admit that our faith is just that- faith, the assurance of things unseen. We have evidences that our faith is in a reality, but understand that there are people who don't have faith in the same things. I would be interested to see your reactions to art that we thinking Christians would consider 'good'.

Another facet of the previous discussion is which part of reality the artist is seeking to portray- the reality of sin and redemption or the 'good, true and beautiful'. While redemption is good, true and beautiful, so is creation. One can paint a tree without sin, but not a human being (other than the Savior).

To many words trying to describe a simple problem. Art is imagination. NO one knows what 'God' looks like so they use imagination. The key problem here is how well the imagined mind directs the physical body to execute the final product. Everything else is conjecture and hearsay...and imagning on the part of the author.

This post nicely summarizes some of the symptoms that accompany bad art, but I'm not sure about the diagnosis of "bad theology" -- in part, that's due to my own hesitancy to pass judgment on someone else's theology.

In my own experience, bad art (and most "Christian art" is merely a sub-category of bad art) suffers from bad intent on the part of the artists: the intent to teach, to impart some moral, even life-changing lesson. IMO, giving in to the didactic impulse is the greatest sin that Art can commit.

I believe that much of modern Christian art is intended not to convey a dramatic narrative, but to convince the audience to change their sinful ways. (Or to convince the righteous in the audience to, self-righteously, keep to their current narrow path... leaving the theater reinforced in the knowledge that they are one of the elect who will be rewarded in the end.)

It's not just Christian art, or even religious art generally, that commits the sin of didacticism. Just as "bad Christian art" finds a paying audience among some religously-devout people, so too does "bad Liberal* art" (*for lack of a better word) find its paying audience among people who want to pat themselves on the back after two hours of vicarious suffering from the social insults (racism, sexism, etc.) that they have never actually suffered in real life. "Preaching to the choir" occurs in every genre.

Perhaps Christian art suffers this problem more consistently than other genres... I guess the Great Commission has to take precedence over Great Art.

We're singing out of the same hymnal. I've a comment below that essentially says the same thing as you. I didn't read yours first, but I'll admit that you seem to have stated what I agree is the correct answer to the 'challenge' of good theological films.

I did give the propensity to over-proselytize (and ruin the film) a name. Tim's Law (if that guy Poe can have a law, so can I dammit).

Another odd bit of serendipity between our sick minds, is the other reason you note for the suckage factor of many religious films. I thought the same, but didn't mention in my comment below, that the 'preaching to the choir' element was also a factor. I was thinking of Mel's Passion of the Bloody Guts extravaganza. The film was a financial success, but is there any respect for the 'art' in this film outside the 'choir'?

The failings of Christian art repeat the failings of Soviet art. Once the resolution of the problem is known--socialism or The rapture--and the road is also known, there is precious little for the Official Art to do, beyond following the usual rut.

I've been ruminating on this problem for quite some time. It seems rooted in bad theology yes, and the root may be dualism creeping back into the modern church. For evangelicals, physical matter is unimportant, we easily see evidence of this in architecture. The state of the soul is all that is important, art suffers because it is intrinsically tied to matter.

As one in the film industry, I see a different issue at hand with Christian filmmaking (and possibly other mediums). The God that we serve might not be able to be portrayed on the big screen because it isn't big enough. Good movies have good character motivation. Especially in American story telling, every beat of the story, the main character is making choices and is in control of where the story leads to next. But bring God into the picture and he is a game changer. We now have things like faith and grace and a plan greater than ourselves that cannot be overseen. The problem is trying to acknowledge those without surrendering the main character's power of choosing where the story goes. Once you allow the main character to surrender to higher powers, there is no one to cheer for, no one to hope for. It just becomes a wait-to-see-what-happens game. Passive stories are bad stories.

A smaller repercussion of trying to acknowledge God's power in our lives in a movie is how cheesy and expositional it can be. The relationship he has with us is unseen and difficult to explain because it is so personal and internal. So people just end up saying, "God said..." "God did..." "God will..." But again, smaller issue.

With all that said, I do believe there are ways to tell stories to the glory of God. But those stories only hold bits and pieces of the truth of God. The pain, the hardships, the brokeness that draws us to change our lives and motives aligning them with the God that provides us with freedom and creativity.

There are a lot of "good" Christian movies, though a paucity of Amercan ones in my judgement. Try "Winter Light" by Bergman, or "Ordet" or "Passion of Joan of Arc" (among others) by Dreyer or much of Bresson's work. Or my favorite, Tarkovsky. Especially "Stalker" and the peerless "Andre Rublev". All are very Christian movies from different sects. I can't stress enough how much I love them, and I am no believer.

I've been mulling over your insightful thoughts here for a while this morning, Tony. Your commentary on Christian fiction affirms the reasons I stopped offering to review them. Most of them are, IMHO, awful, predictable, and can actually foster discontentment in the life of the reader (mostly women). I can agree with most of your points, except that I think there is still a place for movies like "Soul Surfer" (though I must admit that I haven't seen it). I simply don't place them in the same category of art that I would a "true story" movie like "The King's Speech".

Your challenge to those of us who endeavor to be producers of art (which, in reality, as image-bearers, should be all of us in one form or another) is that we do portray brokenness and beauty framed in grace.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "Christian" art. There are Christians who are artists--I suppose by definition they make "Christian" art--but in my opinion there is just art. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. That which is honest and unsentimental tends towards the good and that which is trite and simplistic tends toward not being art at all.

Second, contemporary artists tend to be obsessed with the "messy". Themes of majesty and power and purity seem to be immediately written off as somehow inauthentic to human experience. I find it strange that a society that has more physical security and health than any other in history has such an obsession with pain and despair. Perhaps it is because we're so busy trying to insulate ourselves from it. In past centuries, when people lived with death on a daily basis, they didn't seem to have so much difficulty articulating beauty in an authentic way. My point is that a lurid fascination with the ugliness of life can be just as detrimental to making good art as a facile glossing over of complexity can be.

Thanks so much for your insight. As artists learn more about themselves and the creator their art will show the depth of our human condition, the depths of the character and nature of God. As believers grow and mature in their relationship with God they bring with them a depth to their art. To the degree we continue to grow in our faith we are able to create great art! Also to the degree we neglect growing into a mature follower of Christ our art and culture for that matter will tend to move toward a shallow gospel. May we experience the richness of digging deeply into the mystery and wonder of God and seeing that impact what we create!

I would take issue with your statement "art [...] stripped of the world’s sin and suffering [...] is not really whole at all." As an evangelical, I believe that God created a whole and perfect creation and intends a whole and perfect redemption of that creation, one that does not include any more sin or suffering.

Completion of that magnitude, though, is beyond our fallen imaginations. C.S. Lewis said something once about wanting to make a companion to The Screwtape Letters but knowing it was beyond his capacity to write a whole book from the perspective of the angels. (He wrote a book about heaven, of course, but through the perspective of those who rejected it in life).

The problem with wholesomeness is the you give for sentimentality - it doesn't see how lack of sin is something that has to be earned, not simply accomplished as a "Deus ex machina" on the part of the author. Because our God did not accomplish a sinless reality that way, such artificial solutions deny the choice he gave us. Without evidence of the corruption of the human heart, you lose our need for God as we struggle towards virtue through his grace and mercy. That's the power and drama of it all.

I see two clear issues. First, we have become a society completely centered around school age children. This is both inside and outside the church. The world seeks to turn the children into life long consumers and the church for fear that the world will grab their children focus on the "wholesome" things you speak of. Never mind that most of the bible would never pass for the popular idea of wholesome. This concept appears to pre-assume that there is no market for christian adult level art or programming. It is a tough line to walk because we also don't want to flood our minds with the gratuitous sex, violence, and profanity that the world feeds on either. I think there is much to be taken from the great directors that rely more on what they don't show (and our minds fill in) than what they show.
The second issue that I see stems from the first. We have created a situation where christian movies (especially if they might be boycotted by some for having edgy content) are a risky investment. Ultimately this leads back to what you say above about weak christianity because God could certainly work out the finances of a movie for His glory. Look back on some big budget (for their time) movies with christian principles. Ben Hur, The 10 commandments, and The Passion of the Christ were all well financed and have faired very well over time. The Passion is newer many continue to be moved by that film.
I think it is a tough line to walk. Everyday my life is R rated and there are certainly good reasons to limit our exposure to some content but I also believe that there are creative ways to weave compelling stories that are well made and relevant.

Great article! It's a common issue that's been discussed for years. However, seeing as "Christian" art doesn't seem to be improving, reminders are well worth having. Especially when they're this thoughtful and well-written!

I think one aspect you touched upon is that mainstream Christian publishers require authors to sanitize their writing in order to be published. These authors are led to believe they must turn their writing into pablum or go unpublished. This is not just in the Christian market, though. In many genre's they're told to remove sub-plots and keep their plot simple. Wouldn't want to confuse the "modern" readers. I think it is just more pronounced in the Christian market.

Good insights. I'm bookmarking this article because your points are right on.

I can't help but consider the flipside, though:

Christian filmmakers, novelists and painters know they need to make a living. Christian journalists may occasionally "make it" being tough-minded (like WORLD magazine or Christianity Today), but when Christians look at movies we (as a collective whole) look for "clean and family friendly." Honest, raw films/novels/paintings are more difficult to do well because they require subtlety; and even then they don't sell.

Our qualifications are different, I think, when evaluating the arts because we look to movies or novels as escapism/entertainment. Is this because we lack a robust education in art history? Is this because we lack good theology on art and how it glorifies God? Or is this more of a problem with inheriting a culture that has historically adopted as civil religion a feel-good, "clean, family-friendly" moralism that we've confused for real Christianity?

I've been reading the article and comments with interest. I'm a "budding writer," but also a long-time reader. Often I read for escapism, as you said. Sometimes I want something raw and gritty, something without easy answers and without the "Deus ex machina" magical ending. But sometimes I just want things to end up going well for the protagonist, I WANT to see God step in and do something miraculous (He does that sometimes in real life, too). So I also enjoy the books that aren't exactly reflections of the reality of this life -- sometimes I just want the hero and heroine to live happily ever in this life because I wish it was truly that simple.

The difference, in my opinion,is that there are "happy escapist" books that are written well, and there are "happy escapist" books that are nauseatingly tidy. Everything is crazy and out of place, and then everything magically loops together and ties up nicely. Those kinds of books are what I would consider to be "bad art."

As a person who has fought depression all my life, I NEED some happy escapism from time to time. If everything I ever read, listened to, watched or thought about was as harsh and difficult and ugly as this world can sometimes be, I think I would have to stop reading/watching/listening and hole up in a beehive hut off the west coast of Ireland.

And, to be honest, I read Christian fiction because I like that it's cleaner than "worldly" fiction and I don't have to wade through filthy language and all kinds of other junk.

In my writing, which is Christian fiction, however, I have struggled with the issue of "what do you do about 'real life?'" I.e., real people sometimes swear, even when they're Christians. In real life non-Christians often swear a lot. I don't like the idea of completely sanitizing the language just so it fits the "Christian" genre. In my current story, the main character's father is verbally abusive. I guarantee you he isn't going to call her "a gosh-darned idiot" when he's in the middle of a drunken rant. What to do? (I star and dash out letters, so it's not in-your-face but you know what the dude said.)

Anyway, I think we have to be careful in what we pronounce to be "good art" vs. "bad art" -- not everything in the world has to be heavy and serious and raw to be worthwhile. Personally, I'm quite happy that there are people who are trying to give us some "clean, family-friendly" entertainment, since most of what this world offers is down in the sewer levels. But it absolutely has to be well-done, credible and above all glorify the One who has given us our brains and our need for "good art" to begin with!

Thanks Tony. After reading this I felt the proverbial "light bulb" turn on above my head. I have been struggling with this idea with my own writing and only recently being able to show the messiness of life (Christian and/or otherwise) instead of "sanitizing" it for the sake of a "Christian" audience. (I look back on much of what I have written and just shake my head.)

I believe though, that art that delves into the sinfulness and brokenness of the world will, unfortunately be despised by the Christian audiences just as any interpretation of scripture or belief system outside their own will be ignored or openly vilified.

This needs to be read by any and everyone who labels their art "Christian".

This resonates with some of my concerns regarding art. Most "Christian" art is down right embarrassing because of it's lack of reality and depth. My drawing teacher always told me that an artist needs to take the viewer/listener both to heaven and to hell in order to tell the whole story. Here's a link to my recent post on the subject.

Tony. Your words found a home with me this morning. Thanks so much for your thoughtful critique. I've wrestled with how to make good art, to tell good stories, when the (evangelical) culture I was raised in has much different definitions of what that means. Theosis is messy, and takes us to messy places--where redemption can (and so often does) happen. May we have courage to let our art be messy in the same way.